Council rejects amendment to allow accessory dwelling unit at 1841 N. 1550 E. after extensive neighborhood objection

The Provo City Council rejected an ordinance text amendment that would have added a small area — specifically the property at 1841 North 1550 East — to the city’s map of areas where accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are permitted. The planning commission recommended approval, but the council voted 7–0 against the amendment after extensive public comment raising concerns about spot zoning, enforcement and neighborhood character.

Jessica Donneke, city planner, explained the requested text amendment would add a small map square (including 1841 N. 1550 E.) to the overlay that allows ADUs. She said the property is currently zoned R1-10, which does not allow ADUs, and that the property owner had been identified through a code enforcement complaint. Donneke described two different administrative pathways that have existed historically — a special-use permit route requiring signatures of 66% of adjacent property owners and an ordinance text-amendment pathway — and said the planning commission had recommended approval after receiving public comment; the planning commission hearing drew roughly 20 speakers with about a quarter in favor.

The applicant, Joanna Ludlow, spoke in support of the amendment and described the property as a 1967 house with an existing separate living space, private entrance, separate kitchen and more than the required off-street parking. “This ADU would not change broad zoning over the neighborhood. It will only bring our one law into compliance,” she said, adding that the family planned to be owner-occupants and was seeking a legal pathway for a unit they believe meets ADU standards. Her co-owner, AJ Ludlow, also spoke and emphasized that the property “meets every requirement” and said they expected to house family or a tenant for a limited time.

Many neighbors and neighborhood leaders testified in opposition. Speakers raised repeated concerns about preserving single-family neighborhood character, weakened enforcement of existing zoning, safety and parking impacts on narrow streets, the risk of spot zoning, and the perception that the applicant had rented illegally prior to applying. Among those who spoke against the amendment were Pat Esplin, Diane Francis, Sarah Ashby, John Payne, Michael Stauter, Greg Taylor, Ryan Chroman Hook, David Taylor, Ruth Clegg, Catherine Thomas, Josh Esplan and others; multiple residents described multi-generational ownership in the Oak Hills neighborhood and urged the council to protect legacy single-family zoning. One neighborhood leader reviewed the public record and reported 16% of those who testified at the planning commission supported the ADU and 84% opposed.

Several councilors described the issue as painful and said the council must improve enforcement and the ADU application process. Councilor Becky Bogdan and Councilor Katrice McKay said they opposed spot zoning and emphasized protecting legacy neighborhoods. Councilor Hanley and others acknowledged the Ludlows’ intent and the family’s willingness to comply but said they were not ready to change zoning policy citywide or approve this text amendment as the pathway to legalization. Council discussion included references to a previous special-use permit pathway that was removed and staff efforts to revise the process and enforcement tools.

At roll call, Councilors Hoban, McKay, Christiansen, Hanley, Bogdan, Whipple and Garrett all voted no; the motion to adopt the ordinance text amendment failed 7–0. After the vote, the chair announced the council would adjourn. The transcript records the council’s intent to study process changes and enforcement improvements but does not record a formal direction or timeline beyond staff follow-up and continuing discussion.